Special Committee on Bay-Delta Item 3a, July 28, 2015
Reviewing Recirculated Draft EIR/S and preparing comments Evaluating the State’s proposal Determining consistency with Board policy goals and impacts on Integrated Resource Plan Assessing business case for continued investment Providing ongoing updates to the Board as additional information is released/evaluated 2
Updated timeline Metropolitan’s Bay -Delta Policies Changes from the 2013 Public Draft Water Supply Scenarios Key Considerations Upcoming Actions 3
Planning Agreement Oct 2006 First Administrative Draft Mar 2012 Second Administrative Draft May 2013 Draft EIR/S Dec 2013 California Water Action Plan Jan 2014 CA Water Fix/Eco Restore Announcement Apr 2015 Partially Recirculated Draft EIR/S Jul 10 2015 Public meetings Jul 28-29, 2015 Close of Public Comments Oct 30 2015 Anticipated Final EIR/S Early 2016 4
5
Policies Delta Action Plan Framework Jun 2007 Delta Conveyance Criteria Sep 2007 Delta Governance Principles Aug 2008 Delta Vision Implementation Jan 2009 Delta-Related Legislation Apr 2009 Funding Agreements Execution of Planning Agreement for BDCP Oct 2006 Execution of BDCP Cost-Sharing Agreement Nov 2006 Execution of Initial Funding Agreement Dec 2008 Execution of Amendments to Planning Agreement Dec 2009 Execution of Amendment (additional funds) July 2010 Execution of Amendment to MOA Aug 2011 6
Delta Conveyance Criteria (Sep 2007) • Provide ability to restore fishery habitat throughout the Delta Enhance Ecosystem • Fishery Habitat Minimize disruption to tidal food web processes Throughout Delta • Provide for fluctuating salinity levels • Allow Flexible Allow the greatest flexibility in meeting water demands by taking Pumping Operations water where and when it is least harmful to migrating salmon and in-Delta fish species in a Dynamic Fishery • Environment Reduce inherent conflict between fisheries & water conveyance Provide Water • Consistent with DWR’s State Water Project Reliability Report Supply Reliability (2005) Improve Export • Reduce bromide and dissolved organic carbon concentrations Water Quality Reduce Seismic Risks • Provide significant reductions in risks to export water supplies from seismic-induced levee failure and flooding • Reduce long-term risks from salinity intrusion associated with Reduce Climate rising sea levels • Change Risks Intake locations should be able to withstand an estimated 1- to 3-foot sea-level rise in the next 100 years
8
Announced April 2015 Protects State’s water Supports long-term health of native fish & supplies through Delta wildlife system upgrades Habitat restoration Habitat restoration ~15,600 acres ~ 30,000 acres in 5 years Water contractor funded Broader public funding Tunnel facilities and mitigation 9
BDCP Public Draft EIR/S vs. Recirculated Draft EIR/S Design modifications Improved tunnel operation and maintenance Reduced power needs and power lines in the North Delta Construction impacts Reduced impact on Delta community Increased use of state-owned land Decreased power requirements Water quality Additional water quality analysis and modeling Revised water quality impact conclusions Regulatory approach New Section 7/2081 (b) permit approach 10
Assurances – Section 7 vs. Section 10 Bio Opinion/2081 Permit HCP/NCCP Identify Options for Increasing Assurances Lower Level Higher Level Assurances Assurances 11
Public Draft EIR/EIS — Alternatives Evaluated (16 alts) Alignments East-West / Pipeline-Tunnel / Through Delta Conveyance type Through-Delta / Dual / Isolated No project / no action alternative Intakes 3 to 5 Capacity 3,000 to 15,000 cfs Operations 8 water diversion scenarios Habitat restoration/preservation 8,000 to ~150,000 acres 12
Conveyance Alignments West Canal East Canal Tunnels Through Delta SWP CVP 13
Administrative 2013 Project 2014 Project Draft EIR/EIS Refinements Refinements Water Facility Footprint ± 3,654 acres ± 1,851 acres ± 1,810 acres Intermediate Forebay Size (Surface Acreage) ± 750 acres ± 40 acres ± 28 acres Private Party Impacts – Permanent and Temporary ± 5,965 acres ± 5,557 acres ± 4,288 acres Public Lands Utilized ± 240 acres ± 657 acres ± 733 acres Number of Launch and 7 main tunnel 5 main tunnel 5 main tunnel Retrieval Shaft Locations shafts shafts shafts 14
Maximum North Delta Number of Regulatory Alternative Diversions Intakes Approach 2D 15,000 cfs 5 Section 7/ 2081 (b) Permit 4A 9,000 cfs 3 Section 7/ 2081 (b) Permit 5A 3,000 cfs 1 Section 7/ 2081 (b) Permit New None None Section 7/ No Action 2081 (b) Permit 15
16
Long Term (2025) Annual Average 6 SWP-CVP Exports (million AF) 5 4 3 4.7 - 5.6 4.7 - 5.3 4.7 2 3.5 1 1.5 0 Existing BDCP Earthquake NEW PREVIOUS Regulations Regulations Scenario BDCP/CA Water BDCP Preferred (No Action) without North Fix Preferred (Alt. 4 H1-H4) Intake (Alt. 4A H3-H4) Data based on hydrological period (1922-2003); indicates average annual SWP & CVP water supply exports with climate change in 2025 Existing Regulations = No Action Alternative in 2025 BDCP Proposed Regulations without Northern Intake = BDCP Alt. 4H4, additional South Delta operational constraints; Existing Conditions High Outflow Earthquake scenario analyzed by Dr. David Sunding; would have minimal exports 1.5 to 3 years after earthquake 17
Existing Regulations/No Action vs. Cal Water Fix 6.0 - 6.7 7 SWP-CVP Exports (million AF) 5.8 6 4.7 - 5.3 4.7 5 3.6 3.3 - 3.6 Cal Water Fix - Alt 4a 4 Existing Regulations 3 2 1 0 Critical / Dry Average Wet 18 SWP & CVP water supply alternatives analysis in 2025; Data from Recirculated Draft EIR/S
Reoperation Analysis with BDCP (Winter 2013) 120,000 Delta Outflow or Delta Exports (cfs) (14 days – 1,100,000 af) Delta Outflow to Ocean 100,000 Actual SWP/CVP Exports (14 days – 880,000 af) 80,000 Potential SWP/CVP Exports with 9,000 cfs Facility 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 Nov Dec Jan Feb Increased export with isolated facility ~ 781,000 acre-feet (thru Feb 17) SWP/CVP export losses due to BioOp ~ 800,000 AF (larger amount of SWP loss) 19 Analysis by State Water Contractors – Feb 2013
Delta Reoperations under BDCP (SWP/CVP Supplies) Water Year Year Type Excess Flow Period Reoperation Benefit 2010 Below Normal 1/20/2010-3/16/2010 451,000 AF 2011 Wet 12/07/2010 -7/11/2011 2,531,000 AF 2012 Below Normal 1/23/2012-5/16/2012 806,000 AF 2013 Dry 12/1/2012-1/25/2013 474,000 AF 2014 Critical 2/9/2014-4/10/2014 207,000 AF 2015 Dry 12/12/2014-1/11/2015 200,000 AF Metropolitan’s share approximately 25%; Analysis modeled by MWD 20
Implementation under New Approach Cost and Schedule Amount and reliability of water supplies Assurances, permits and agreements Role of SWP/CVP Contractors Operations Collaborative process to address scientific uncertainties Flexibility to revisit outflow and other operational requirements 21
Review and Analysis • Evaluate alternative regulatory approach • Determine consistency with Board policy goals & impacts on IRP • Assess business case for continued investment • Define collaborative science process/adaptive management Discussions • Cost allocation • Agreements/Contract Amendments • Upcoming decisions Decisions • Final EIR/S • Record of Decision (Federal)/Notice of Determination (State) • Section 7 BiOp and 2081 Permit • Approval of associated agreements 22
Sacramento Suisun Bay Stockton State & Federal Pumping Plants
Recommend
More recommend
